Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

This woman deserves to be a judge. It's time those asshole Senators stop this fillibuster crap and allow ALL the nominees for judgeships a vote by the full Senate.

Good Judge

The case for Janice Brown

By Clint Bolick

The nomination of Janice Brown to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is the latest judicial appointment to touch off major opposition. Brown is strikingly libertarian in her writings and decisions, which is one reason she has outraged both liberals and conservatives during her distinguished career.

Brown currently serves as associate justice of the California Supreme Court, where she has distinguished herself as a passionate and consistent defender of individual rights. The D.C. Circuit is considered the second most important federal court, and is often a springboard to the Supreme Court. Indeed, three of the current nine Supreme Court justices were elevated from the D.C. Circuit.

That dynamic, combined with the fact that Justice Brown is an outspoken black female individualist, is why Brown's nomination has evoked frenzied opposition from liberal groups such as People for the American Way and the National Association for the Advancement for Colored People. They calculate that the best way to keep Brown off the Supreme Court is by keeping her off the D.C. Circuit.

The daughter of sharecroppers, Brown is a self-made success story. Following a distinguished career in both the private and public legal sectors, Brown was appointed to California Supreme Court by Gov. Pete Wilson. During her tenure, she has considered a number of tough issues, authoring majority and dissenting opinions distinguished by their eloquence, sharp wit, intellectual breadth, and fidelity to core Constitutional principles.

What is most remarkable about Brown's jurisprudence is that she sees all basic individual rights as equally fundamental. Unlike many liberals, she counts property rights and economic liberties as deserving of judicial protection. In Santa Monica Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1999), for instance, she dissented from a decision upholding a rent control ordinance, declaring that "[a]rbitrary government actions which infringe property interests cannot be saved from constitutional infirmity by the beneficial purposes of the regulators."

In a dissent in San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco (2002), which upheld the city's sweeping property restrictions, Justice Brown expanded on that theme. "Theft is still theft even when the government approves of the thievery," she declared. "The right to express one's individuality and essential human dignity through the free use of property is just as important as the right to do so through speech, the press, or the free exercise of religion."

Brown also consistently upholds such rights as freedom of speech, privacy, and the rights of criminal defendants?a position that bothers many conservatives. In People v. Woods (1999), Justice Brown objected to a police search of a home justified by the fact that a roommate was an ex-felon. "In appending the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, the framers sought to protect individuals against government excess," she wrote. "High in that pantheon was the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures."

Likewise, Justice Brown voted to strike down a warrantless search of a man arrested for riding a bicycle on the wrong side of the street. Describing the search as excessive, Brown noted that an arrest for such a silly infraction never would have taken place in an affluent neighborhood. "If we are committed to a rule of law that applies equally to 'minorities as well as majorities, to the poor as well as the rich,' we cannot countenance standards that permit and encourage discriminatory enforcement."

? dissented from a ruling holding Nike liable for "consumer fraud" in an advertisement defending its labor practices;

? took the position that a company could not be punished for its employee's racial epithets because they were speech protected by the First Amendment;

? voted to strike down as overbroad under the First Amendment a "Son of Sam" law confiscating profits for any written works authored by a convicted felon relating to the crime.

Remarkable for the breadth of sources upon which she draws?ranging from Hayek, Ayn Rand, Cicero, Toqueville, and the Founding Fathers to Chris Rock, Paul Simon, and Buffalo Springfield?Justice Brown's speeches and opinions are spirited and provocative. They also provide fodder for opponents to distort her record. Fortunately, her consistent libertarianism gives her a chance with swing-vote senators who profess support for civil liberties, such as Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), Joseph Biden (D-Del.), and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

Justice Brown is not a typical Republican judicial nominee. She understands the crucial role of courts in a constitutional republic: She is deferential to the elected branches when they act within their prescribed boundaries, but zealous in the defense of individual liberties against majoritarian tyranny.

Brown's nomination affords a rare chance for a lasting legacy of freedom. Indeed, her appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit would vastly strengthen the institution of government most entrusted with the protection of individual liberty.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers

For 200 years the Senate carefully considered the professional track record of any judge nominated for the federal bench.

That changed three years ago when ranking Democrats decided to turn the Senate Judiciary Committee into their own personal meat grinder. Despite having nearly one hundred federal judgeships to fill, these Democrats resolved to torpedo most of President Bush's nominations. This partisan blood oath-as opposed to careful consideration of the Jurist's record-now decides who presides over our federal courts. At least one major implication is that the dearth of federal judges (one eight of all federal judgeships still remain to be filled) will undermine the administration of justice in this country.

The latest victim is Justice Janice Rogers Brown, the first black woman to sit on California's Supreme Court. Brown has been nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, a position that is widely regarded as a stepping stone to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brown's track record is impeccable.

Nonetheless, the Democrats have dug in their heels in opposition. Unable to criticize Justice Brown's professional conduct, the Democrats have taken to attacking her through a series of reductive and increasingly racist smears.

First the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized her "right-wing" statements in speeches, as though the roles of public speaker and judge are even remotely comparable.

Then the New York Times editors wrote that, ''she has declared war on the mainstream legal values that most Americans hold dear. And she has let ideology be her guide in deciding cases.'' But even a cursory review of her record makes clear that Justice Brown is firmly entrenched in the mainstream, as evidenced by the fact that she wrote more majority opinions than any other Justice on the California Supreme Court. Most insidious is the suggestion by certain democrats that Justice Brown is "not black enough." Senator Chuck Schumer of New York criticized Justice Brown for voting against ''minorities'' and ''low-income'' people. Schumer makes no mention of specific cases where Brown ruled against "minorities" and ''low-income'' people who actually deserved to win. He just oh so casually insinuates racism. In effect, Schumer is criticizing Brown for treating the constitution as colorblind (wasn't this one of the major goals of the civil rights movement?).

Now a handful of racist, Democrats in the Senate-and the black leaders they drag in tow-are joining in on the race baiting. "?She makes Clarence Thomas look like Thurgood Marshall," sneered Rep Diane Watson (D-CA). A joint press release by the NAACP and People for the American Way calls Justice Brown a "far right dream judge."

And Hilary Shelton, director of Washington's chapter of the NAACP, said President Bush nominated Justice Brown solely "?to get some kind of credit because she is an African-American woman?." The Black Commentator called Justice Brown a "Jim Crow era judge, in natural blackface." A cartoon posted on their web site, www.blackcommentator.com, was even more insidious. It depicted President Bush referring to Brown as "Clarence," while introducing her to Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Secretary of State Colin Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Just like that, all of Judge Brown's hard work-she rose up from a segregated Alabama community to achieve personal and professional success -- dissolve beneath the hurtful and reductive label of "Uncle Tom." This is no different than using the "N-word" to sum up an individual.

This is the approach the Democrats take every time a conservative minority is nominated for a position of prominence. This is what I call, "new racism." It's about systematically preventing conservative blacks and Hispanics from achieving positions of prominence in this country. It's about summing up complex human beings by the color of their skin. And it sends the damaging message that because we share the same skin color, we all need to think, act and vote the same way.

American Blacks and Hispanics are complex human beings. They should be allowed the intellectual freedom to arrive at those views and values that are the best mesh with their individual personalities. Whites can vote for whomever they chose. But minorities are told that they must be liberals or they're traitors to their race. This is one more assault on intellectual freedom and diversity, conducted by patronizing Democrats who still feel they know what is best for blacks and Hispanics.

"I have only one agenda when I approach a case, and that is to try to get it right," Brown told the Senate Judiciary Committee at her confirmation hearing. It's a shame that at this late date, ranking Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are more interested in the hue of her skin.

--------------------You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers